Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by canefan on Aug 6, 2023 20:48:58 GMT -5
You guys really are a trip. Read your response again. You insist that I just accept that he is guilty, you are certain he is guilty. Doesn't matter what the legal experts say. You want him to be guilty so he is. Remember, in the US you are innocent until proven guilty. I don't have any idea what kind of evidence it will take to prove that he actually knew for a fact that he lost and didn't actually believe he won and the election was stolen. That's why I say it will have to go through the chain. Anyone not driven by their liberal bias is going to at least admit to themselves that any trial for Trump in DC has zero chance of being fair. So going through the appeals up to the SCOTUS is where we will see the legitimate legal arguments. SCOTUS does not rule on the findings of fact by a jury, nor does it overturn verdicts. It can only rule on the process of the case and whether or not the law was followed. It can invalidate the trial and/or some aspect of a ruling by the court, but it cannot find Trump not guilty if the jury found him guilty. In a criminal case they will examine everything that went into the verdict and decide if it stands or is reversed. I really don't care what you call it.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Aug 6, 2023 22:11:16 GMT -5
SCOTUS does not rule on the findings of fact by a jury, nor does it overturn verdicts. It can only rule on the process of the case and whether or not the law was followed. It can invalidate the trial and/or some aspect of a ruling by the court, but it cannot find Trump not guilty if the jury found him guilty. In a criminal case they will examine everything that went into the verdict and decide if it stands or is reversed. I really don't care what you call it. ...and all that means, in Trump's best case, is a new trial, not an acquittal.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by canefan on Aug 6, 2023 22:35:04 GMT -5
In a criminal case they will examine everything that went into the verdict and decide if it stands or is reversed. I really don't care what you call it. ...and all that means, in Trump's best case, is a new trial, not an acquittal. Not sure about that. It would depend on why the SCOTUS ruled as they did. A technical issue could cause a new trial but if they can and do rule on just the facts and overturn the conviction I don't think the government could charge him again.
|
|
Enter your message here...
Godlike Member
|
Post by trnyerheadncough on Aug 6, 2023 23:59:21 GMT -5
...and all that means, in Trump's best case, is a new trial, not an acquittal. Not sure about that. It would depend on why the SCOTUS ruled as they did. A technical issue could cause a new trial but if they can and do rule on just the facts and overturn the conviction I don't think the government could charge him again. Uh…what? I guess you’re referring to the notion that SCOTUS would somehow just rule that there’s insufficient evidence of the conviction and dismiss the indictment with prejudice?
|
|
That's TrnYerHeadnCough...
"Champion Douche -- 2012 AND 2013"
Back to Back...they may have to retire the contest...
"Bowl Champion Douche --2012-2013"
Get it right.
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Aug 7, 2023 7:45:41 GMT -5
...and all that means, in Trump's best case, is a new trial, not an acquittal. Not sure about that. It would depend on why the SCOTUS ruled as they did. A technical issue could cause a new trial but if they can and do rule on just the facts and overturn the conviction I don't think the government could charge him again. You need to brush up on civics. That isn't how it works.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by nu5ncbigred on Aug 7, 2023 14:55:12 GMT -5
SCOTUS does not rule on the findings of fact by a jury, nor does it overturn verdicts. It can only rule on the process of the case and whether or not the law was followed. It can invalidate the trial and/or some aspect of a ruling by the court, but it cannot find Trump not guilty if the jury found him guilty. In a criminal case they will examine everything that went into the verdict and decide if it stands or is reversed. I really don't care what you call it. If the justices overturned a conviction ruling that the presidential records act fully protects a president regarding his records as president and during his presidency and how they are handled post presidency then it’s over forever.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Aug 7, 2023 15:06:57 GMT -5
In a criminal case they will examine everything that went into the verdict and decide if it stands or is reversed. I really don't care what you call it. If the justices overturned a conviction ruling that the presidential records act fully protects a president regarding his records as president and during his presidency and how they are handled post presidency then it’s over forever. TRN can answer this better than I, but first, unless that issue was brought up at trial, I do not believe SCOTUS could take it up. And if it was brought up at trial, a motion to dismiss with that argument during trial would be decided. Appeals courts have only the trial transcript to rule on; nothing more. If that ruling was overturned, again...all Trump gets is a new trial.
|
|
Enter your message here...
Godlike Member
|
Post by trnyerheadncough on Aug 7, 2023 15:10:52 GMT -5
In a criminal case they will examine everything that went into the verdict and decide if it stands or is reversed. I really don't care what you call it. If the justices overturned a conviction ruling that the presidential records act fully protects a president regarding his records as president and during his presidency and how they are handled post presidency then it’s over forever. Your statement makes a lot of assumptions that run contrary to the facts as they are known, given the statements made by Trump and what the PRA actually says.
|
|
That's TrnYerHeadnCough...
"Champion Douche -- 2012 AND 2013"
Back to Back...they may have to retire the contest...
"Bowl Champion Douche --2012-2013"
Get it right.
|
Make America Great Again !!!
Supreme Being-like Member
|
Post by Panama pfRedd on Aug 7, 2023 15:50:45 GMT -5
TRD was a shit lawyer who couldn't cut it without raiding daddy's coat tails. That much is abundantly clear so I wouldn't rely on any advice that dipshit offers here regarding the law.
|
|
................................ ................................ = Panama pfRedd - 2021 Regular Season Champion = ............................... ................................
|
Enter your message here...
Godlike Member
|
Post by trnyerheadncough on Aug 7, 2023 15:56:17 GMT -5
TRD was a shit lawyer who couldn't cut it without raiding daddy's coat tails. That much is abundantly clear so I wouldn't rely on any advice that dipshit offers here regarding the law. Rent free. 🙂
|
|
That's TrnYerHeadnCough...
"Champion Douche -- 2012 AND 2013"
Back to Back...they may have to retire the contest...
"Bowl Champion Douche --2012-2013"
Get it right.
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by canefan on Aug 7, 2023 16:43:23 GMT -5
If the justices overturned a conviction ruling that the presidential records act fully protects a president regarding his records as president and during his presidency and how they are handled post presidency then it’s over forever. TRN can answer this better than I, but first, unless that issue was brought up at trial, I do not believe SCOTUS could take it up. And if it was brought up at trial, a motion to dismiss with that argument during trial would be decided. Appeals courts have only the trial transcript to rule on; nothing more. If that ruling was overturned, again...all Trump gets is a new trial. Why then does the SCOTUS listen to oral arguments before them?
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Aug 7, 2023 16:59:00 GMT -5
TRN can answer this better than I, but first, unless that issue was brought up at trial, I do not believe SCOTUS could take it up. And if it was brought up at trial, a motion to dismiss with that argument during trial would be decided. Appeals courts have only the trial transcript to rule on; nothing more. If that ruling was overturned, again...all Trump gets is a new trial. Why then does the SCOTUS listen to oral arguments before them? Because there are legal arguments to be heard about the court case. Things like exculpatory evidence suppression, or new evidence, or violations of court sentencing rules, etc. But the remedy SCOTUS gives is basically yes or no to a mulligan about whatever it is they are ruling on, never a change in the verdict by the jury. That's a done deal. Guilty is guilty. Period. Then it's up to the prosecutor to decide if their case is still good enough to go through it again. Often is isn't. But even in the famous Miranda ruling, the guy only got a new trial, even though the SCOTUS ruled that his 5th A rights had been violated by the process of his arrest and trial and tossed the entire case.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by canefan on Aug 7, 2023 21:27:42 GMT -5
Why then does the SCOTUS listen to oral arguments before them? Because there are legal arguments to be heard about the court case. Things like exculpatory evidence suppression, or new evidence, or violations of court sentencing rules, etc. But the remedy SCOTUS gives is basically yes or no to a mulligan about whatever it is they are ruling on, never a change in the verdict by the jury. That's a done deal. Guilty is guilty. Period. Then it's up to the prosecutor to decide if their case is still good enough to go through it again. Often is isn't. But even in the famous Miranda ruling, the guy only got a new trial, even though the SCOTUS ruled that his 5th A rights had been violated by the process of his arrest and trial and tossed the entire case. I am certainly not an expert in their procedures but I did find this about appeals: If an appellate court finds that the evidence was insufficient for the jury reasonably to convict the defendant, the court must order the entry of a judgment of acquittal.[5] In either case, that judgment and the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause protect a party against a second prosecution for the “same offense”[6] even if the acquittal is “based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation.”[7]
|
|
Enter your message here...
Godlike Member
|
Post by trnyerheadncough on Aug 7, 2023 21:40:09 GMT -5
Because there are legal arguments to be heard about the court case. Things like exculpatory evidence suppression, or new evidence, or violations of court sentencing rules, etc. But the remedy SCOTUS gives is basically yes or no to a mulligan about whatever it is they are ruling on, never a change in the verdict by the jury. That's a done deal. Guilty is guilty. Period. Then it's up to the prosecutor to decide if their case is still good enough to go through it again. Often is isn't. But even in the famous Miranda ruling, the guy only got a new trial, even though the SCOTUS ruled that his 5th A rights had been violated by the process of his arrest and trial and tossed the entire case. I am certainly not an expert in their procedures but I did find this about appeals: If an appellate court finds that the evidence was insufficient for the jury reasonably to convict the defendant, the court must order the entry of a judgment of acquittal.[5] In either case, that judgment and the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause protect a party against a second prosecution for the “same offense”[6] even if the acquittal is “based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation.”[7] The Court does retain the power to actually do that…in theory. I’d suggest the possibility of that occurring in this particular case to be highly unlikely. It’s rare for it to occur in regular court cases. Even with the political climate, I’d suggest that SCOTUS wouldn’t unilaterally overturn a conviction from a jury just because 6 of them might favor Trump if the evidence is anywhere near as it is pled in the indictment.
|
|
That's TrnYerHeadnCough...
"Champion Douche -- 2012 AND 2013"
Back to Back...they may have to retire the contest...
"Bowl Champion Douche --2012-2013"
Get it right.
|